Re: glow in the dark fishies

[Toni]

"Graham Ramsay" > wrote in message
...
> I was actually thinking about the whole ethical
> side of fishkeeping the other day.
> I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild
> caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough
> about the issue to make a judgment either way.
> Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that
> fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that
> any livestock we buy has been treated humanely
> and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable
> wild populations?
> If not then there should be.
>


I think about these things as well... only *I* think "humanely treated /
wild caught" is an oxymoron. <g>
Perhaps one of the first things we can do as end buyers is to ask our LFS
"where is this fish from?" before each and every purchase. Let them know
that it is an issue that will influence where the $$$ go.


--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm

[Jim Brown]

Graham Ramsay > wrote in message
...
> "Chuck Gadd" wrote
> > Actually, for some wild caught freshwater fish, having them caught for
> > the aquarium industry might be the only thing saving them. I don't
> > recall which species she was talking about, but Karen Randall
> > mentioned areas in South America where fish are caught and sold. In
> > those areas where they banned fishing (to protect the fish), suddenly
> > that land wasn't making any money, so the forests were cleared for
> > farming and other uses, which destroyed the habitat and killed off the
> > fish.
>
> There were some live-bearers for sale at our last
> fish club auction which are now extinct in the wild
> due to habitat destruction.
> I was actually thinking about the whole ethical
> side of fishkeeping the other day.
> I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild
> caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough
> about the issue to make a judgment either way.
> Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that
> fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that
> any livestock we buy has been treated humanely
> and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable
> wild populations?
> If not then there should be.
>
> --
> Graham Ramsay

One of the benefits of this hobby is seeing that we can sustain species that
are no longer found in the wild. Some top of the head examples would be
cherry barbs, black ruby barbs, and most Lake Victoria Hap's.
Some are so common and easily bred within the hobby that the chance of
extinction is remote. Others are maintained through specialty societies,
zoos, and scientific studies, so that perhaps a restocking can take place
once the causes for extinction in the wild have been corrected.
Reef or marine fish do not have the benefits of time, numbers of keepers,
and ease of keeping that freshwater fish have on their side. Yes, there are
firms that are actively involved in spawning experiments with marine fish
and invertebrates. Some are successful enough to offer the progeny through
retail outlets. But it will take a lot more time and study before many of
the marine life forms are self sustaining in captivity. Our hobby would be
a lot smaller if we had to wait for just tank raised fish.
Some tank raised fish come with 'certificates' of captive breeding. But I
imagine it is up to the individual hobbyist to be informed about the status
of fish they intend to keep, and to be experienced and knowledgeable enough
to provide a proper aquarium environment. The longer we can keep fish
alive, the less likely we need to purchase replacements, probably of wild
caught fish.
What you keep is indeed a personal decision. Just be informed.

Jim

[Jim Brown]

Toni > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Chuck Gadd" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated?
> >
> >
>
> Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm
wrong
> <g>-
> I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a
creature
> from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that
die
> is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky?
> Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a
> plastic bag?
> Simply so they can live in a box in your home?
> As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous?
>
> I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives.
> I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses
our
> present society condones.
> I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine
> their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to
> our own.
>
> I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently
> enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the
> creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past.
> The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died.
> We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild
> kingdom.
>
> I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet
> shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more
than
> my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man.
>
>
> --
> Toni
> http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm
>
>

[Jim Brown]

Toni > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Chuck Gadd" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated?
> >
> >
>
> Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm
wrong
> <g>-
> I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a
creature
> from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that
die
> is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky?
> Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a
> plastic bag?
> Simply so they can live in a box in your home?
> As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous?
>
> I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives.
> I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses
our
> present society condones.
> I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine
> their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to
> our own.
>
> I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently
> enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the
> creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past.
> The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died.
> We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild
> kingdom.
>
> I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet
> shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more
than
> my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man.
> Toni

Then how do you feel about cattle being yanked from a pasture, jammed onto
trains or trucks, then crammed in stockyards at the slaughterhouse?
Zoos are no longer just a prison for captive animals. They are repositories
for animals that are almost lost in the wild. They maintain an
international registry of captive animals to allow breeding programs to
share the gene pool. Many even breed animals that are extremely rare, and
establish release programmes for the successes of their efforts.
I would imagine that there are less animals being treated inhumanely now
than in the past. Any animal at risk can look to man as the reason.
Not an easy problem to resolve, but at least the efforts are being made.

Jim

[Djay]

This ethical consideration is very interesting. We in the West (America)
have realized the results of our "industrialization" and have for basically
economic reasons, moved our "dirty manufacturing" to third world countries.
We preserve our habitat at the expense of other's habitats. I'm an American
and believe in free enterprise...because I'm a true blue Capitalist, but let
me take this one step beyond fishkeeping (because I'm pretty buzzed on
Merlot :))\
One day we're going to overpopulate the earth or do something to melt the
polar ice caps or something equally cataclysmic.... (some folks believe that
we will exterminate some "Key" in the food chain that will domino up the
food chain to us)... the beauty of nature is that it really doesn't matter.
What survives after the cataclysm will be stronger.
So... off the soap box... and the wine bottle, when the fish that we keep
are near extinction because of something man did, well I feel that having
those rare species in a controlled environment is a wonderful extension to
their lives. A friend of mine once said that as a species becomes extinct,
we suffer greatly. However until we become extinct we won't understand the
suffering. Dang.... birthday wine does a number on my sensibilities! :)
Are we much different than the "fish in the box" that one previous poster
mentioned? Heck, I've moved to several new "boxes" over my 40 year life
span...

BTW the majority of my fish have been with me for over 5 years. Their
thousands of spawn have populated a few LFS... Don't know how they would
have faired in the wild!?

DJay


"Toni" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Graham Ramsay" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I was actually thinking about the whole ethical
> > side of fishkeeping the other day.
> > I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild
> > caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough
> > about the issue to make a judgment either way.
> > Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that
> > fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that
> > any livestock we buy has been treated humanely
> > and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable
> > wild populations?
> > If not then there should be.
> >
>
>
> I think about these things as well... only *I* think "humanely treated /
> wild caught" is an oxymoron. <g>
> Perhaps one of the first things we can do as end buyers is to ask our LFS
> "where is this fish from?" before each and every purchase. Let them know
> that it is an issue that will influence where the $$$ go.
>
>
> --
> Toni
> http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm
>
>
>

[Cichlidiot]

Skunky > wrote:
> I know that for some areas of the world, their only income is from
> catching fish for the trade, but at what price, some fish have already
> seen dramatic drops in numbers, one in particular I'm led to believe is
> the Zebra plec, yet I still see them for sale, why?

> I know a few of you keep Marine fish and inerts etc, which the majority
> of are wild caught I believe, personally I feel it should be banned. I
> know there are controlled catches around the world, but for some reefs
> etc, the damage has been done and some of it irreversible all because
> of high demand by the trade.

> Being actively involved in raptor conservation in the U.K, I can
> foresee for different reasons, the future of certain species of
> tropical fish doomed! I know there are quite a few species of fresh
> water fish struggling to maintain numbers due mainly through habitat
> loss and pollution here in the U.K

Well, my personal take on wild caught fish (and I have owned some in the
past and plan to again in the near future once I rid myself of certain
roommates (search for my recent disaster on alt.aquaria)) is that I only
purchase wild caught fish I know that I can breed in my tanks. My thoughts
are that I should contribute to the local hobby by breeding these fish and
distributing them to the LFS and aquarium societies in the area. I tend to
prefer F0 and F1 for my breeding tanks to avoid the possibility of
hybrids. Still has the possibility of inbreeding, but it's really the
purity of the species that I'm more concerned with. Anyways, in this way,
as some other respondants have mentioned, the species can be maintained in
the hobbyist/industry field even if it becomes "extinct" in the wild.

One quick note as for damage, I have seen one damaged wild-caught fish
from the rift lakes. In my last batch of Neolamp. similis, one female
definately had a damaged swim bladder. She couldn't really swim without
slowly sinking even if she put a ton of effort into it. I always wondered
if she suffered from pressure issues when caught or if it was a later
infection/etc that caused the problem. She didn't seem to be unhappy from
it. She had her own little spot in the colony and defended the fry
(although not as adeptly as the others). I miss my little "clown" as I
called that female *frowns in her roommate's direction*.

[Toni]

"Jim Brown" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Then how do you feel about cattle being yanked from a pasture, jammed onto
> trains or trucks, then crammed in stockyards at the slaughterhouse?


Well- any cattle that spent time in a pasture are much better off than the
pigs stacked in crates and shat upon by all the pigs above it for all its
life. Or the chickens penned so closely that their feet grow around the
grates. For some ridiculous reason I was taken on a tour of a slaughter
house as a small child- fear in an animals face is not something you forget.

I'm a hypocrit I guess, as a failed vegan of several years. I'm a product
of my society as much as anyone else. I do buy free range poultry and
Coleman beef, but that is more to avoid hormones as it is taking an ethical
stand.


> Zoos are no longer just a prison for captive animals. They are
repositories
> for animals that are almost lost in the wild. They maintain an
> international registry of captive animals to allow breeding programs to
> share the gene pool. Many even breed animals that are extremely rare, and
> establish release programmes for the successes of their efforts.


None of these extraordinary efforts would be necessary had man not fouled
the equation to begin with.

> I would imagine that there are less animals being treated inhumanely now
> than in the past. Any animal at risk can look to man as the reason.

And that's my point.


> Not an easy problem to resolve, but at least the efforts are being made.


The problem will never be resolved as long as man sees this planet as his
own personal playground, and the flora and fauna as fun to play with *and*
expendable. It will be what gets us in the end.


--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm

[Luca Brazi]

"Toni" > wrote in message k.net>...
> "Chuck Gadd" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated?
> >
> >
>
> Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm wrong
> <g>-
> I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature
> from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die
> is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky?
> Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a
> plastic bag?
> Simply so they can live in a box in your home?
> As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous?
>
> I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives.
> I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses our
> present society condones.
> I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine
> their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to
> our own.
>
> I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently
> enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the
> creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past.
> The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died.
> We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild
> kingdom.
>
> I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet
> shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more than
> my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man.


I sort of hope this is a troll. We're all guilty of the occasional
oversimplification but the view that aquarium (or any) fish has "their
right to exist as equal to our own" is more than a tad extreme as is
"it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives." (we'll assume
you're vegan, but how do you justify intruding on the life of
vegetables? Do the screams of butternut squash keep you up at night?)
I'm all for treating our finned charges humanely and maintaining their
tank environments respectfully because we, generally, have assumed
that burden in making the decision to keep fish. But I'm also pretty
comfortable with our position as a species on top of the food chain.
Remember folks: we aren't intruding on some grand environmental
equation that would be harmonious and static but for our bumbling;
we're part of the equation and it is dynamic and non-linear--we and
our bumbling are part of the grand equation(or at least this part of
it). Species going extinct for a variety of reasons is part of
evolution; it may not be wise of us to blithely obliterate some
species--but it is rather difficult to tell a subsistance farmer in
South America not to feed his kids because we (from the comfort of our
air conditioned keyboard cubes) need to perpetuate the habitat of a
micro shrew that may or may not exist elsewhere and likely has very
little impact on our survival as a species. There are lots of folks
to blame for the overly romanticized view of nature implied here, from
Rosseau to Disney. Rachael Carson's alarmist style has also muddied
the discourse.

Think beyond the greenpeace bumper stickers.
Enjoy your grilled salmon.

[Skunky]

To be honest this topic could go on forever and cause some folks to fall
out! I could write about this stuff forever and moan about it. One
thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat
destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS, that
sickening affliction to want to own and control everything at any
cost.

Stuart


--
Skunky

'Peace On Earth.....And In The Water'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted via www.GardenBanter.co.uk



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[James Williams]

"Skunky" > wrote :
>
> One
> thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat
> destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS,

Just some of the recent ones.

No one ever complains about the thousands of lost species caused by the
proliferation of Bison in NA nor the loss of whole ecosystems as the
continents shifted nor the near total extinction of every form of anaerobic
life when oxygen producing algae came to be.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/18/03

[Chuck Gadd]

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:42:11 +0100, Skunky
> wrote:
>thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat
>destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS

Sorry, not even close. If you want someone or something to blame,
point to nature.

According to the 1995 United Nations Environment Programme Global
Biodiversity Assessment, over 95 percent of all species that ever
existed are now extinct. Even figures for the number of species known
to have existed vary greatly, ranging from between two million and
80million - while some scientists estimate that only about 1.6million
species have ever been recorded.

440 Million years ago, 20 - 50 % of families wiped out.

360 million years ago, 20 - 30 % of families wiped out.

250 million years ago, 50 % of families wiped out, Greatest mass
extinction ever.

213 million years ago, 20 - 35 % of families wiped out. Dinosaurs and
mammals had just recently evolved; both live through this extinction.

66 million years ago, 15 % of families wiped out. Dinosaurs
become extinct. 65 million of years after this mass extinction, early
humans evolve.

About 11,000 years ago, many species of animals went extinct across
north america. Some people try to point to human hunting as the
cause, but evidence of human hunting exists only a few of the hundreds
of species that were wiped out. A more credible explanation points to
a changing climate, long before man was having a big impact on the
climate.



Chuck Gadd
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua

[LeighMo]

>I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature
>from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die
>is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky?
>Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a
>plastic bag?
>Simply so they can live in a box in your home?
>As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous?

Well, yes, obviously. <g>

I'm curious, though. If you feel this way, why do you have an aquarium?
Especially with wild-caught fish like cardinal tetras, otos, and farlowella
catfish? You could, if you wanted, keep only captive-bred fish, and not be
party to the "ultimate abuse."


Leigh

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/

[LeighMo]

>You're right of course.
>It's a slippery slope and I'm hopelessly conflicted.
>

LOL! Well, at least you're honest. :-)

I'm somewhat conflicted, too. I don't really have a problem if people know how
to care for the fish, and are willing to make a commitment to do it properly
for the fishes' entire lives. But the vast majority of fish are bought by
people who don' t have a clue. Heck, that's probably what keeps pet stores in
business. It would probably be better for the fish if there were no fish
stores. True hobbyists would find a way.

I try to be environmentally aware when I choose my fish. I won't buy bala
sharks, for example. But a lot of the time, you just don't know how endangered
the fish is, or if the method of harvesting does environmental damage.

Leigh

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/

[Lee Clemmer]

"Skunky" > wrote in message
...
>
> To be honest this topic could go on forever and cause some folks to fall
> out! I could write about this stuff forever and moan about it. One
> thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat
> destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS,

Um, no.
Major extintions are generally caused by changing environmental conditions
that have little or nothing to do with human beings. This is a fact. Were we
responsible for the dinosaurs going bye-bye? Of course not. I'm not
downplaying the Amazon basin deforestation, etc. We definitely should take
care in our treatment of the environment, but to presume that we're the one
big "problem" is a bit ignorant.

Lee

[Skunky]

As I said, 'the past few hundred years' eg, the loss of over 42 species
and 44 subspecies of bird lost in the past 280 years! Causation;
habitat loss, deliberate hunting and the introduction of non native
species! Ignorant I'm not, arrogant you would appear!


--
Skunky

'Peace On Earth.....And In The Water'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted via www.GardenBanter.co.uk



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Lee Clemmer]

"> You do realize that there were no humans when the dinosaurs roamed,
right?

Of course, that's exactly my point. We couldn't have had anything to do with
it, because we didn't exist yet. It was a bit of a joke.

> I don't think any other species in the history of the Earth has been
> responsible, directly or indirectly, of so much damage to ecosystems and
thus
> of the extinction of species, both plant and animal.

Tough to say, since we weren't around to see if there were species that were
more destructive, for most of the earth's history. You may be right, we
might be the most destructive. But so far all that we've done has been very
mild compared to what nature has done and can do. Again, I'm not making
excuses for our behavior. We shouldn't be destructive if we can avoid it.

Read Chuck's post. (if you didn't)

Lee

[Lee Clemmer]

There's vastly more forest habitat in this state now than there was 100
years ago, even with the increase in urban sprawl.

Massive increase in habitat for lots of critters.

We've also created an excellent roach and rat habitat here in the city :)

Lee

[Jim Brown]

It's nice to know that your state is increasing forest area, but what about
marshes, rivers, and meadows? All of these support unique life forms too.
The bigger problems exist in areas such as Madagascar, the Amazon basin,
Australia, even Central America. Places where we have just barely scratched
the surface of learning about, yet which are being extremely pressured by
interference by man.
Mankind is a problem, but also the only chance at restoration.

Jim

Lee Clemmer > wrote in message
news:4KzNa.14115$Ix2.3861@rwcrnsc54...
> There's vastly more forest habitat in this state now than there was 100
> years ago, even with the increase in urban sprawl.
>
> Massive increase in habitat for lots of critters.
>
> We've also created an excellent roach and rat habitat here in the city :)
>
> Lee
>
>

[cindy]

For those interested in GFP modification of rabbits, dogs, etc. check
out this link: http://www.ekac.org/transgenic.html

Personally, I think Kac is a kook and that this technology shouldn't
be used for "art" and amusement.

[Luca Brazi]

Skunky > wrote in message >...
> Unfortunately Chuck, my memory doesn't go that far back! As you
> pointed out 'these are some of the recent ones' I should have been more
> specific, the past few hundred years! We have no hard evidence of what
> went on 460 million years ago to give a clear picture, just fossils and
> a lot of 'maybe's from our guessing scientists.
>
> All I know, of the 33 years I've been around, species declines and
> habitat loss have been as a direct result of human interference and are
> continuing right now.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> --
> Skunky
>
> 'Peace On Earth.....And In The Water'
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> posted via www.GardenBanter.co.uk
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Ah, but Chuck's research demonstrates a respect for nature's
complexity that alarmists pointing to recent "trends" don't share
because it wouldn't yield the sort of hyperbole that keeps such groups
afloat with dollars and impressionable "activists." If you must look
to "recent" history, remember "global cooling"? In the 1970's
activist science was up in arms about the "man-made" cooling trend
that was engulfing the planet. Now fast forward to today and global
warming and the shrill voices that say we've sealed our doom by not
signing the Kyoto treaty. According to James Schlesinger "We cannot
tell how much of the recent warming trend can be attributed to the
greenhouse effect and how much to other factors. In climate change,
we have only a limited grasp of the overall forces at work.
Uncertainties have continued to abound--and must be reduced. Any
approach to policy formation under conditions of such uncertainty
should be taken only on an exploratory and sequential basis. A
premature commitment to a fixed policy can only proceed with fear and
trembling." Now compare climate modeling to modeling the biological
health of the planet, to include sustainability, evolution and species
extinction. Wow. If we need to be humble about climate change, then
uproar over a glowing fishie or "species decline and habitat loss"
really does need to be put in context. The point is, ethical
stewardship of the environment demands that we, have sufficient
humility regarding our own ability to understand and model something
as complex as evolution, and accept that we are part of the process
and not an alien interloper.
Granted, this position doesn't fit well on a protest sign and won't
let you sound earnest enough when chatting up that Radford undergrad
at the antiglobalization rally, but maybe the world would be better
off without another puppet-filled parade of upper middle class angst.

off topic, but now off my soap box and for the record, I probably
wouldn't buy one of the glowing fishes unless I was going for a "mod"
tank filled with castles and air bubbling divers and skeletons with
treasure chests.

[Moontanman]

>off topic, but now off my soap box and for the record, I probably
>wouldn't buy one of the glowing fishes unless I was going for a "mod"
>tank filled with castles and air bubbling divers and skeletons with
>treasure chests.
>
Glowing fishes are no worse than lion headed goldfish, teacup poodles,
miniature horses, mules, various odd colored snakes or any other animal whose
appearence we change for our own benefit. True genetic manipuation is a little
more direct but still the same thing. As for global warming we happen to in be
in one of the most stable streaches of climate in the last several million
years. climate has changed by dozens of degrees warmer and colder than we are
now and over shorter spans of time than we have monitored. contrary to most
current thinkers we are now in in a decline of CO2 that will eventually result
in the decline of all plant life and eventually all life on our planet. CO2
emissions from vulcanolism are in a s gradual decline that will in a half
billion years or so result in a dearth of CO2 so severe that plant life will
die off. the increase of CO2 and warming caused by humans is insignificant in
the greater scheme of things. It's only when a very tiny slice of time is
taken into account does our CO2 emmisions seem to be significant. In fact we
could only be slightly delaying the inevitiable next ice age which is good for
most people of the world. Actually we really don't know what the long term
effect will be and there is evidence that more CO2 will result in increased
plant growth and greater food production. In fact CO2 levels have been much
greater in the past at times when plant growth was much more rampant than
today. the real problems of Ozone holes, an smog are much more important than
CO2, at least for humans personally. As long as humans continue to live on this
planet (which is something we must change if we want the earth's ecosystem to
grow naturally and for humans to survive) humans will continue to have effects
on the planet. some good some bad but none as great or widespread as the
effects the earth it's self can have with one volacanic explosion. it's better
if we design our own pets instead of harvesting them from the wild, at least GM
pets will not have to be taken from the wild and promote destruction of entire
ecosystems for pet fish. We will destroy the ecosystems fast enough to grow
cows, obtain lumber, grow gardens, and other more nesessary things.

Moon
remove nospam from e-mail to send to me, I grow trees in aquariums like bonsai.
I breed dwarf crayfish, great for planted community tanks. If you can get me a
shovelnose sturgeon fingerling (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) no wild caught
please, contact me

[rogermackk]

I know you can not let a small portion of marine fish and inert gases, most of which are wild caught, I believe, I personally feel it should be banned. I know that control of fishing around the world, but for some coral reefs, the damage has been done, some of it irreversible, all because of high demand trade.

[piterritz]

I'm a hypocrit I guess, as a bootless vegan of several years. I'm a product of my association as abundant as anyone else. I do buy chargeless ambit banty and Coleman beef, but that is added to abstain hormones as it is demography an ethical stand.